masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:SpartHawg948
User:SpartHawg948/archive1 Mercenaries Category I see many articles relating to mercenaries, but I couldn't find any category for it. I think there are sufficient articles for a sub category Mercenaries under the Adversaries category. --silverstrike 23:53, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :Works for me! SpartHawg948 00:51, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Should I move the content of the Mercenaries article to the new category and redirect? --silverstrike 02:36, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::No, cuz the category should just be a repository of all Merc-related articles, it shouldn't be an article in it's own right. SpartHawg948 04:01, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Hello My background is involvement with the Dragon Age wikia, editor for Wikipedia and Scientipedia, and I run my own mediawiki wiki. Herwin 15:51, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Upon editing a page, no place to leave a reason why Hi, I'm pretty new here. I just edited 2 pages and found that there was no place to leave the reason why I edited them? The page says to leave your reason in the box below, but there is no box. Thanks! ResilientMonkey 16:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :Take a look at: Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style. --silverstrike 16:08, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I wasn't clear on that since the Summary box is pre-filled in. I understand now. Collector Ship Hi, The Collector Cruiser page currently has this in it: "The Collector Cruiser seen in Mass Effect 2 is currently the only known Collector ship." I believe that we don't have enough to stand on to make this assertion, while User:Jaline insists that it is valid. We have changed it back and forth, and in the event of an 'edit war' an administrator should probably be consulted. What is your stand on the matter? Regards, UERD 02:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :Just posted my thoughts on Talk: Collector Cruiser. Read them there. Also, could you either fix or remove the redlink you left? The proper way to link to a user is, of course, User:Jaline|Jaline (all in brackets, of course). Like so- Jaline. Thanks, SpartHawg948 02:10, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :(Also, using the actual title of the article, as opposed to a redirect title, is always nice. It's Collector Cruiser, not Collector Ship. Makes it easier for me to link to the talk page if I actually have the real title of the article here.) SpartHawg948 02:12, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :: Thanks for your input :). I also fixed all the relevant links, sorry about that. UERD 02:15, February 13, 2010 (UTC) New Templates Suggestions I've been working on two separate templates: #Multi-page navigation - Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style/General#Multi-Page Articles #Mission Summary float-box - Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style/Missions I would appreciate if you could take a look and comment on them. --silverstrike 17:11, February 13, 2010 (UTC) Incorrect Assumptions? I believe it is impossible to leave Zaeed to die on his loyalty mission, I also believe it is impossible to Kill Grunt right after you release him from the pod. I believe I have tried every way and couldn't do either, so I think their pages shouldn't have that on there. But am I wrong? :I have similarly tried every way to kill Zaeed on the loyalty mission and to kill Grunt when released, but I have been unable to do so. I've been trying so I can kill as many teammates as possible to get the Shepard dies ending. I keep wondering if there is some magical Paragon or Renegade number now, but no matter how high or low, I am unable to do it. I know that killing Samara was only possible upon doing a successful Charm or Intimidate beforehand. If there was no Charm or Intimidate, the option to choose doesn't appear and Samara lives. —Seburo 04:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Kelly chambers romance guide I suppose this is the equivalent of a pm , if not im terribly sorry I have absolutely no idea how this works. Anyhow , I have written a guide in how to romace kelly chambers, in much more detail than the one you have here "http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Kelly_Chambers" as it was not very helpful, not at all. I submitted the guide here "http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Kelly_Chambers#romance.3F" again because i dont know where the appropriate place is. Hopefully you ARE the person I should talk to. If not, forward it to whoever is. Thanks for your time, I hope I helped 09:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)Kal'R 09:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :Ok, just to clear this up, the romance section of the Kelly Chambers page is not meant to be a step-by-step walkthrough. It's just a little section about how she is romancable, followed by some info about how she differs from the other romance options. So no, a much more detailed walkthrough is not needed, at least not on the Kelly Chambers page. That kind of stuff belongs in the Forums. SpartHawg948 10:32, February 14, 2010 (UTC) OT: User SilentShadow Hey. How you're doing? I'm a admin at Assassin's Creed Wiki, and user SilentShadow has created a userpage there for writing of a Mass Effect guide. I've done some background check, and he seems to be somewhat... pesky. Since you had some "history" with him, won't hurt to ask your opinion. You think he can be trouble? -- D. Cello 00:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well hello! Always nice to see folks from other wikis! Yes, yes I do think he can be trouble. He has a history of rude behavior and making derogatory comments to other users, as well as attempting to monopolize articles by posting things at the top of the page such "THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, please do not edit anything before it is completed" and "do not edit this our self because I'm constantly playing the game and typing here." I can't say for sure that's how your wiki operates (it's a very nice wiki, btw. I was there all the time while I was playing Assassin's Creed 2) but I'm sure you don't appreciate users telling other users not to edit pages. As for what he's doing over there, that's up to you, but I know I wouldn't be too keen on someone using their page here for an AC2 guide. He has to do it there b/c he was banned from this wiki for his behavior. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! :) SpartHawg948 00:56, February 15, 2010 (UTC) New Person - Slightly confused... Hi, Don't want to make an enormous fuss, but can I ask for an explanation why we want tons and tons of redirects all over the place? I know it makes it slightly easier for a new person to add content, but it does add quite a bit of work for the wiki software / internet connections. Not trying to rock the boat too hard, just would like to know why the policy is in place? Dancing.Shadow 01:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Well, the reason we have the redirects is so we don't have to have a ton of aliases in articles. It makes it easier for editors when making changes to articles. Our goal isn't to be software/internet connection friendly, it's to be user friendly. SpartHawg948 01:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :: Been reading through editing pages and run into something I didn't know (or had forgotten), that you can point a link and tag the s on afterwards eg: turians becomes turians : Would this be acceptable? Its just something that I can be quite anal about, had to survive on a very VERY bad net connection for a year or two, plus I like to have the syntax "right". : Plus if we can loose 20 - 30 pages it seems like a nice thing to me... : Feel free to tell me if I'm being an idiot. : Dancing.Shadow 01:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, I'd really not have too much of an issue with just using things like turians in articles (although I have seen numerous instances where it doesn't display properly) but I'd really rather not have every single instance where a redirect is used in an article changed to that, as we have a policy that if something is correct the way it is, we'd really rather users didn't go in and change it just to make it more acceptable to them personally. And even if we did this across the board, new users would still be using the redirects in articles, and we wouldn't "lose" any articles, as the redirects would still stay around, as they are very useful when using the search box, which is why most of the redirects were created in the first place, after all. SpartHawg948 01:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::Note that redirects are server side and add no network load. --DRY 02:24, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :: Oops, thanks for the tip, was working on an in house wiki a couple of weeks ago and that had Terrible (oh yes does it rate capital T) lag from redirects, thought they were using recent wikia software but apparently not... Ah well live and learn Dancing.Shadow 02:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well it can be configured/hacked to return 302 but I'd be gobsmacked if they did – for exactly the reason that you mentioned. A quick check shows that this is indeed the case: Assignment and Assignments both result in virtually the same HTTP transaction (with encoding:gzip for Firefox anyway). --DRY 02:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Nope. "Archaic" is not an archaic word. It has a meaning and a purpose. It was adopted from Greek into the English language in the 1800s. "Whilst" is an unnecessary change from "while" grounded in Early Modern English from the pre-Renaissance days that is recognized by most guidelines for style to be both archaic and needlessly strange to American and Canadian readers. Worse still, not every instance of its use within is correct. The distinctions between "whilst" and "though" may be subtle, but they exist. Style considerations aside, whilst/while has a temporal connotation. "Though" does not. In sentences that compare two concepts and have no temporal element necessary in the conjunction, "whilst" is not just stylistically a poor choice, it is wrong. Restoring the edits, then, is a step forward not only for international standards and usability, but for correctness. None of the edits I made were incorrect or violative of wiki standards. As such, they should not have been reverted without a good reason. Fear of rocking the boat is not one of those reasons. :Note also, however, Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style#Spelling. We do cater to both sides of the pond here. --DRY 03:25, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Watchlist question Something I noticed on the watchlist, there's a green/red number by the page. It is positive or negative, respectively, and my only guess is that it is the number of lines added or subtracted. Is my guess right, or is it something else? :Yup, you are right on the money! :) SpartHawg948 04:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Number of characters rather than lines, but yes. --DRY 04:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :::You mean there haven't been 1,718 lines added to my talk page in the past hour? (not counting this entry, of course!) Sure seems like it! :P SpartHawg948 04:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks Zero-G Mako 12:46, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Hey, all cool. I'm new to the editing thing or I'd add sources more often, I have a youtube video of the commercial from Illium. I hope this is enough. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQFF5crvydg Creating Morality Guide for ME2 Hey, I've started working on the ME 2 morality guide and for organizational purposes, I think the original morality guide shout be renamed to "Mass Effect Morality Guide" as I've named the new one, "Mass Effect 2 Morality Guide". I don't know how to change a main title though. --Karstedt 06:10, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Suggestions As I've done so far through the forums, I'd like to know what your current policy is in regards to suggestions. I do not wish to butt heads with administration and I don't wish to create a negative atmosphere. However, I would like to suggest improvements for the wikia in a constructive manner. If you could please let me know what the most productive course would be I would greatly appreciate it. I apologize for the main page edit and any comments which may have offended you. 07:35, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :If you have suggestions, the most productive methods of disseminating them would be to either A) Bring the suggestions up on the relevant talk pages, or B) Send them to myself or one of the other admins. We're here to help. Just a quick word to the wise though, I can come across as a bit abrasive, so if you send me suggestions, it's a good idea to do the background research. For example, pointing out that we've had nearly 30 FAs on this wiki to support your proposal of rotating the FAs on a weekly, rather than a monthly, basis, seems well and good until you factor in that it's not that we've had nearly 30 FAs, it's that we've only had just under 30 FAs since July of 2007. Less than 30 FAs over the span of 32 months averages out to less than one new FA a month. Hardly support for speeding up the rotation. SpartHawg948 07:43, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Doing the research is a requisite and I seem to have forgetten it this time. Ah well, next time I suppose. I too come off as abrasive at times, so I won't take offense. Your proposal should work out just fine, and I salute you for your effort not to cop-out. 08:44, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :Why thank you! I do what I can! :) In all seriousness though, while I may have come across a bit too harshly at first, I do wish to extend to you my appreciation for bringing this up. I started thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized we probably can do better than once a month! SpartHawg948 08:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Ahh, progress. What a thing. As I mentioned, let me know if I can help. 08:50, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Also, let this serve as a lesson to my detractors (yes, I know, you're all shocked that someone as, er... nice, as me could have detractors! I'm shocked too. :P) that I CAN compromise, but in order to do so, there has to be a suggestion/proposal worthy of compromise!!! SpartHawg948 08:52, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Races discussion I think that, at the very least, you could define these categories within the article to head off confusion. Until I have a more comprehensive suggestion that takes your given parameters into account, that's all I got. Again, I think it's going to lead to trouble in the long run to use codex categories that only cover a portion of the races/creatures in Mass Effect. As more and more of them crop up without listings, you run into the problem of dissenting classification, and ambiguously different categories. If the article were to at least explain these categories, it would help. [[User:Fodigg|''—fodigg]] [[User_talk:fodigg|(''talk)]] | 14:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC) Weapons during Battle of Citadel Hi. A few question about the weapons used in the naval battle at the end of ME. I read about every post talking about this, but couldn't find what i was looking for. So, the Alliance cruisers shown in the final cinematic fire 3 types of ammo, a missile/torpedo, 2 laser beams and something that looks like 2 globes of molten metal that unite during flight. Is that molten metal fired from the mass accelerator ? And if so, why is it fired from the lower bow of the ship and not from the spinal gun ? Also, i understand lasers are only seen in GARDIAN systems. If so, then the 2 beams fired just before the final blow given to Sovereign must have been from a GARDIAN system...isn't it poorly placed on the front of the Alliance cruiser, where it can easily be avoided by fighters ? Finally, those missile like things are in the end disruptor torpedoes, right ? I thought they were only for fighter. Much appreciated. :No idea. I'm not a writer at BioWare. I have exactly the same resources at my disposal as you do on this one, so all I can do is make educated guesses. As for why the Mass Accelerator rounds appear to be emitted from the wrong part of the cruisers, you need to talk to the folks at BioWare about this one, as I have no clue. None whatsoever. I'm just some guy who helps out as an admin here. :RE the GARDIAN fire- GARDIAN systems consist of multiple turrets to afford a full field of fire. There is no reason not to place one on the front of the ship, and one very good reason TO put one there. If there were no GARDIAN coverage of the front of the cruiser, that would become the natural avenue of attack for enemy fighters, wouldn't it? They'd see this big unprotected area and go for it. It'd be stupid to not put a GARDIAN there. Remember too that GARDIAN systems are not just used against fighters, but also against missiles. And I doubt the missiles will be looking to avoid GARDIAN turrets. Again, as full a field of fire as possible is better to avoid getting killed. :Finally, I don't recall it ever being stated that disruptor torpedoes are only mounted on fighters. The Codex says disruptor torpedoes are the primary armament for fighters, but that doesn't mean there can't be disruptor torpedoes on larger vessels as well. You also have to consider that they may not be disruptor torpedoes at all. The "missile like things" may be Javelin projectiles, which are clearly stated to be used by larger vessels. :Again, I'm really not the best person to ask, but I hope this helped some. SpartHawg948 23:11, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :There was an old post on the Bioware forums http://meforums.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=685301&forum=144&sp=30 by one of the game's writers, who also contributed a lot to the wiki, explaining that the cutscene in the battle isn't actually supposed to be representative of the technology in the game's universe. To quote, "So, despite what you see in the cutscenes, missiles are not used in Mass Effect space combat. Anything you saw that you interpreted as a missile was a hallucination caused by Sovereign's indoctrination of you. Please consult a qualified medical specialist." —Seburo 23:31, February 16, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, but that's more CYA than anything. The last two sentences pretty much scream that the entire entry is meant to be taken at least partially in jest. SpartHawg948 00:43, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :::One of the writers that's on here now, might be the same one (not sure), said that there was something of a breakdown in communications between the writing team and the cinematics team, at least on the nitty-gritty. So I probably wouldn't count the Battle of the Citadel as indicative of ME space battles. Here's to hoping that there's another good one in ME3! Compare it to Star Wars... Battle of Yavin was a good space battle, then Battle of Endor in the third one. Mmm, Endor. (Please no Death Stars in Mass Effect, Reapers are scary enough.) Boter 01:51, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::::That's the exact post that I linked to and was quoting. The post was by Chris L'Etoile, who goes by Stormwaltz on here. —Seburo 02:31, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Why the snark? Are all admins on this wiki this combative? [[User:Fodigg|''—fodigg]] [[User_talk:fodigg|(''talk)]] | 22:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC) :Combative enough to offer to apologize if they indeed insulted your reading comprehension skills, as you alleged? I sure hope so! Look, you called my point of view absurd and arbitrary, hardly polite, and then when I attempt to make my position known on another matter, you go ahead and assume you know my position already without simply offering me a chance to elaborate. I can be combative at times, but I'm never preemptively so. I only give as good as I get. And again, I did offer to apologize. SpartHawg948 05:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC) Romance section formatting The problem with having all the pictures grouped together is that the text then becomes very confusing. Before I edited the page it had the text separated by pictures (though the order was a bit messed up). When the pictures are spaced throughout the text there is some context and reference to the characters being talked about. Compare the way it's done in the ME1 Romance section of that article, for example. Bronzey 10:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :Compare it to a section with one third as many subjects? Not much of a comparison (btw, HUGE pet peeve of mine- there is NO SUCH THING as ME1. There's Mass Effect, aka ME, and Mass Effect 2, aka ME2. There is no game called Mass Effect 1. Now that I'm done and can climb down off this soapbox...). There seems to be a decent amount of context as is, what with sections that start with sentences such as "for a male Shepard they are:", and "for a female Shepard they are:". And as for references to the characters being referred to, the names are given both in the description, and below the image. It's as simple as going "Miranda... which one is Miranda? Oh! This lady with the name Miranda under the picture!" Even I can manage that right now, which is nothing short of miraculous, given how tired I am! The current format isn't perfect, but it looks a damn sight better then the other way... mincy little ribbons of images with big, unappealing globs of text strewn in between. Unfortunately, given that there are three times the options, formatting it the same way as the ME section isn't doable. SpartHawg948 10:40, February 18, 2010 (UTC) Definition of drug * A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. * A substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body. * Something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness. *A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. Ethanol fits all of these definitions, please note that what one government's law says another government's says different. Please provide references proving that alcohol is not a drug. As far as I know all scientific and medical communities recognize ethanol as a legal drug along with tobacco (harmine and nicotine) and caffeine. C6541 01:25, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :But again, as I stated in my edit summary, for legal purposes, alcohol is generally categorized separately. Refer to wikipedia:Alcoholic beverage. It is true that ethanol is a depressant, but it is also true that while a majority of states criminalize usage of most drugs, a majority of states also allow legal usage of both alcohol and tobacco. I never stated anything about the scientific and medical communities. The article was describing actions Harkin had taken that resulted in disciplinary problems for him, and it distinguished between drugs and alcohol because, while drug use is illegal in and of itself, alcohol consumption is legal, but Harkin engaged in alcohol abuse which, while legal, had deleterious effects on his career. I never stated that alcohol is not a drug, just that it is legally distinct, and the context of the article made this distinction necessary. SpartHawg948 01:50, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::Alright I get you, cheers. C6541 01:59, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ME2 Article Overhaul and Integration of Templates Just want to get your input on User talk:DRY#ME2 Article Overhaul and Integration of Templates. Race Boxes We are arguing over one small aspect of the race boxes, which only affects 4 of the races. It is hardly grounds to scrap them all completely. If you have such an enormous problem with it, all we have to do is remove the Citadel Status line. -Saren72 21:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :I have a few problems with it- 1) The Citadel status lines on all the boxes are either A) Speculative, B) Incorrect, or C) Really vague due to canon issues (depending on which race it is), at least one of the boxes had no reason to exist (the Keepers box), as it was full of unknowns, and 3) There is nothing in the boxes that isn't easily learned by reading a few sentences into the articles. Nothing. Oh, and 4) Did you run this by an admin? We ask that before major changes to the articles like this are undertaken, we at least have some knowledge of it. For example, when the character infobox change was being discussed, it was debated for several weeks, with several users and admins having input. We really as that users not just take it upon themselves to do this stuff on a whim. SpartHawg948 21:47, February 19, 2010 (UTC) I don't really know what to say... http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Morinth_Samara%3D_SEXY_CATFIGHT!! Enough said. :I have to say, while it would be AWESOME to have a page dedicated to Morinth and Samara's sexy catfight (maybe with some video of it in slow motion, with the appropriate catfight noises added) I just don't see it in the cards... :( SpartHawg948 22:14, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Just got a Trojan from this site about 2 hours ago some popup I accidentally clicked on installed a trojan "Paladin Antivirus Software," complete with a rootkit that disabled my regular antivirus stuff. Was using firefox, was definitely from this site. I know you have nothing to do with it, but thought i'd drop a line here since I just saw your message.--Slothen 06:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC) Sovereign could you direct me to the charector dialogue sub pages :There currently isn't one for Sovereign, so you'd have to create one. And I have no experience with those, as they are a relatively new feature and I wasn't really involved in their creation. Best bet would be DRY. SpartHawg948 07:08, February 22, 2010 (UTC) ::The link would be Sovereign/Unique dialogue. The Sovereign page proper should be updated with a link if the dialogue page is created. --DRY 07:11, February 22, 2010 (UTC) :::It would also be worth pointing out that, unlike the little one-liners and purely scripted conversations that people have been putting on the subpages, the conversation between Sovereign and Shepard that you included is only one of many possible conversations, as there are a lot of dialogue choices that affect what is said and when. I know that none of the conversations any of my Shepards had with Sovereign went like the one you posted. SpartHawg948 07:14, February 22, 2010 (UTC) yeah unfortunately i used a video for that dialogue and the person filming chose the middle option out of the 3 each tine until the end where you can use the dialogue options on the left to get more infomation. II Nazara II Edit warring on Reaper Two IPs (which appear to be the same person) keep adding info to the Reaper page indicating that they are descended from cuttlefish. They need to be warned and/or blocked, this has gone on all day: *User talk:24.247.114.135 *User talk:216.120.170.5 If I knew where Wikia's kept their equivalent of WP:AIV, or how they handle warnings, I'd do that, but I don't, so I just pulled you off the top of the blocklist. ShadowRanger 21:09, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :BTW, the second IP picked up after the first, acting as if it were a different person, though IP lookup indicates the same geographical location. Likely an IP sock. ShadowRanger 21:11, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::I have actually already spoken to the first individual (assuming they are two different individuals) so I'll take a looksee at this, see what I can do. Also, good call on picking me! I tend to be the stricter and less generous of the two admins currently doing the lion's share of the blocking. :) SpartHawg948 22:02, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :::For the record, I still strongly oppose one year IP blocks: an initial 3 day ban is plenty to start off with. Most idiots have short attention spans. (Spambots are a different story, obviously.) --DRY 23:23, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Fair enough... I really do need to get away from doing those, as they were supposed to be phased out at some point... So, starting in March (aka in 5 days) no more 1 year bans. Although I'm not going to lie, I don't do 3-days. If they vandalize and I see it, it's 2 weeks. SpartHawg948 23:44, February 23, 2010 (UTC) :::::I can get on board with that. I'll do the same thing, for consistency. --DRY 23:46, February 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::::You know what? Screw the first of March, I'll just start doing it now. (Take that, First of March!!!) SpartHawg948 23:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC) : Besides the obvious IP lookup which reveals the same location, I did a search on 24.247.114.135 and found this: Halo Wikia Talk. 24.247.114.135 mentioned something and 216.120.170.5 appears to "back him up". Serial puppet sock I'd say. Teugene 02:38, February 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Good looking out! SpartHawg948 05:25, February 24, 2010 (UTC) :::Yet another one - The geth rule causes another "revert war" --silverstrike 18:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I noticed. I have since spoken to the aforementioned user, and think that this problem should be solved. Is it truly? Only time will tell... :) SpartHawg948 04:23, February 26, 2010 (UTC) Multiple Discussions of the same topic in Discussion tabs I have noticed the tendency for people to make new discussion topics when the core topic is already discussed on same Discussion Tab. I would like to know if it is okay to clean up the Discussion Tabs so that the topics are grouped together and the conversations kept separate so as to not lose the pace of the talks. -- (Lone Hunter) :By convention, editing of existing talk page content is not condoned. You are free, of course, to add links or similar as new comments in existing sections. --DRY 18:33, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Yup yup. I don't know why I even bother checking this stuff anymore. DRY is always at least three steps ahead of me! He is, of course, correct that it is a big no-no to edit talk pages. And he's pretty much right about everything else, so I'm mainly commenting now to appeal to my own vanity. I do love the sound of my own voice, or whatever the text version of that would be... :P SpartHawg948 21:12, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Editing others' talk page comments? You left me a warning, but I'm honestly confused here. Where did I do this? I'm generally very careful to not edit anyone else's comments. ShadowRanger 22:45, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :Looking through my history, I see two things you might be referring to: :#I have added unsigned tags to a few comments to indicate the original poster, solely for clarity :#In this diff, I might have accidentally broken up a comment from one user. A lot of people weren't signing or indenting, so it's possible I split a post in half, thinking the top half was a separate message from the bottom half :Aside from that, all I've done is occasionally add headers to sections that lack them so as to allow the ToC to appear in the appropriate place and do its job. ShadowRanger 22:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::No, in the one I'm referring to, which I just informed you of on your talk page, you definitely removed comments left by two editors, one of them an admin. SpartHawg948 22:52, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :::I responded on my talk. If you don't mind, I'd just as soon keep the rest of the thread in one place. ShadowRanger 22:56, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Wrapping up I just want to say, I hold absolutely no grudges over our disagreement, and I hope I did not offend. I recognize the reasons for the rule, and while I disagree with your interpretation, I nevertheless consider your viewpoint valid. Please, accept my apologies for any consternation I have caused; we both want to improve the wiki, and when two people like that disagree, it can get heated. ShadowRanger 00:15, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not going to lie, you did offend with your comment labeling me a "well-meaning martinet". I never got heated, nor did I resort to any sort of name-calling or veiled insults (martinet being a derogatory term, "well-meaning" or no). And stating it was "civil disobedience" implies that I am enforcing some sort of draconian law that calls for civil disobedience, which is hardly appreciated. SpartHawg948 00:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Hmm... Just checked your user page and discovered you're an air force staff sergeant. So I can understand how you might take it a bit personally, given it's relationship to your real world profession. To clarify, your interpretation of what I meant by "well-meaning martinet" was spot on, except I did not intend to imply that the laws you were enforcing were outrageous or draconian, which I believe is where the majority of the pejorative sense of the word comes from. I don't actually know the Wikia specific rules, so I follow the general guidelines I've learned on Wikipedia. Technically, even Wikipedia has a guideline (though not a policy) that agrees with you (archiving is preferable to deletion), but people regularly ignore it for trivial stuff such as the small bits I deleted, presumably under WP:IAR (which I happen to think is an absolutely essential rule of any wiki, so long as it is used sparingly and not abused). ::Consider my comment on "civil disobedience" hyperbole; I'm no Rosa Parks (and I really hate it when people call themselves the "Rosa Parks" of anything); I was having a little fun and got carried away. ShadowRanger 00:51, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :::So, basically, you didn't mean to imply that I was enforcing outrageous and draconian laws, but you did mean to imply that I'm a well-meaning but misguided disciplinarian. Thanks. That's a huge improvement. Now it's not an insult directed at me and this site's rules (many of which I had a hand in writing), it's just an insult directed at me. That makes me feel so much better. Also, please note that this is a wikia, not Wikipedia. We do not have an Ignore All Rules clause. Were there such a clause at the central Wikia, we would not be compelled to acknowledge or implement it, as admins of individual wikis are given considerable lee-way in determining how their wikis are run. And one last note, Air Force is capitalized, as it's an organization, and Staff Sergeant is capitalized, as it is a rank. I know it wasn't intended, but it is considered a sign of disrespect to refer to someone's rank without the proper capitalization. SpartHawg948 03:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the invitation Heya! I'm the guy who edited the AI Hacking discussion page. Decided to take you up on your suggestion. I probably won't edit much more. I just get tired of how often people dismiss AI Hacking in ME2. It's only situationally useful, but a) Those situations are more common than I think some people state, and 2) My ''god ''it's good when it's useful. It ruins cover, eliminates an enemy, assists in destroying others. Thanks again, JackSlack 03:40, February 26, 2010 (UTC) , dedicated Engineer